SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT...28/5/2013 Cherry Plum, Weeping Willow, Douglas Fir. Pakenham East...

JOHN PATRICK PTY LTD 324 Victoria Street Richmond, VIC 3121 T +61 3 9429 4855 F +61 3 9429 8211 [email protected] ABN 62 952 638 242

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE HERITAGE CONSULTANTS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS

SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT PAKENHAM EAST PRECINCT

PREPARED BY

Simon Howe

Consultant Arborist & Landscape Heritage Consultant

B.AppSci(Hort), GradDip Plan&Des (LandscpArch) MELB

November 2013

JOHN PATRICK PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 13-166TS.docx PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 1

3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 3

PSP Property No 6. ............................................................................................................................. 3

PSP Property No 8. ............................................................................................................................. 3

PSP Property No 11. ............................................................................................................................. 3

PSP Property No 38. ......................................................................................................................... 4

PSP Property No 48. ......................................................................................................................... 4

PSP Property No 50. ......................................................................................................................... 4

4 Results of Tree Assessment ............................................................................................................ 5

PSP Property No 6. ............................................................................................................................. 5

PSP Property No 8. .............................................................................................................................6

PSP Property No 11. .............................................................................................................................9

PSP Property No 38. ......................................................................................................................... 11

PSP Property No 48. ........................................................................................................................ 12

PSP Property No 50. ........................................................................................................................ 13

5 Tree Retention and Protection Guidelines ............................................................................. 17

1. Planning and Subdivision Layout ........................................................................................... 17

2. Construction ................................................................................................................................... 18

3. Future Plantings ............................................................................................................................ 19

6 Descriptors .......................................................................................................................................... 20

7 Appendix 1 – Datasheet for Cardinia Significant Tree Assessment ............................ 30

8 Appendix 2 – Cardinia Shire Council Significant Tree Study Assessment

Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 34

Pakenham East Precinct November 2013

Significant Tree Assessment

JOHN PATRICK PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 13-166TS.docx PAGE 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This assessment has been prepared for Cardinia Shire Council to investigate specific

trees identified in the Pakenham East Post Contact Heritage Assessment prepared by

Context Pty Ltd, November 2013 (the Context Report).

1.2 A number of sites and individual trees have been identified in the Context Report

suitable for further investigation as to their cultural and/or environmental

significance. This report has been prepared to provide specific advice to Cardinia

Shire Council on the significance of the identified trees, as well as their arboricultural

viability. The information contained in this report supersedes the assessments

contained within the Context Report.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 The study area, the Pakenham East Precinct, is located on the eastern side of the

Pakenham Township, 20 kilometres east of the Narre Warren-Fountain Gate principal

activity centre. The study area includes properties situated in the localities of

Pakenham, Nar Nar Goon and Nar Nar Goon North. A map of the study area is

indicated on Figure 1, below.

Figure 1 Map of study area




2.2 The specific methodology employed in the preparation of this study was:

1. Review of the Context Report and identification of specific sites requiring

assessment. Six individual properties were identified and are listed in Table 1,

below;

2. Site visits to each of the six properties, undertaking assessment of each tree

or tree group identified in the Context Report. The results of the initial

inspections are included in Section 4 Results of Tree Assessment;

3. Review of assessments and preparation of initial recommendations,

summarised in Section 3 Recommendations;

4. Preparation of datasheets for trees identified to have significance within the

Shire of Cardinia, utilising the methodology as established in the Cardinia

Shire Council Significant Tree Study 2009;

5. Preparation of guidelines for the retention and protection of trees in a future

urban precinct.

2.3 The following six properties were inspected following a review of the Context

Report:

Table 1 List of sites reviewed

PSP

Property

No.

Address Site Visit Trees identified in the Context Report

6 15 Mount Ararat Road,

Nar Nar Goon North

6/6/2013 English Oak

8 40 Dore Road,

Nar Nar Goon

28/5/2013 Pair of Cypress;

Pear;

Canary Island Date Palm

11 45-55 Dore Road,

Nar Nar Goon

28/5/2013 Various species of trees and shrubs

38 32 Mount Ararat South Road,

Nar Nar Goon

28/5/2013 Quince

48 140 Ryan Road,

Pakenham

6/6/2013 Monterey Cypress

50 180 Ryan Road,

Pakenham

28/5/2013 Cherry Plum, Weeping Willow, Douglas Fir.




3 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The following section summarises the findings of the individual tree assessments at

each of the PSP properties identified in Table 1. Individual assessment reports are

included in Section 4 Results of Tree Assessment.

PSP Property No 6.

15 Mount Ararat Road, Nar Nar Goon North

A single tree was assessed within the site

An English Oak (Quercus robur) is located to the immediate north west of

the northern homestead within the site. The tree does not warrant inclusion

on the Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register, but should be retained and

protected as part of future (potential) site development.

PSP Property No 8.

40 Dore Road, Nar Nar Goon

Three trees or tree groups were assessed within the site.

The pair of Italian Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) located in the paddock

to the south of the existing dwelling are of limited viability and not worthy of

specific controls or retention as part of (potential) site development.

A Canary Island Palm (Phoenix canariensis) located to the west of the

existing dwelling is a high amenity specimen, The tree does not warrant

inclusion on the Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register, but should be

retained and protected as part of future (potential) site development.

A Pear (Pyrus ?communis) located to the west of the existing dwelling is

recommended for inclusion on the Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register.

A datasheet for the Pear conforming to the methodology of Cardinia Shire Council

Significant Tree Study 2009 is included in Appendix 1.

PSP Property No 11.

45-55 Dore Road, Nar Nar Goon

A single tree was assessed within the site.

The Hoop Pine (Araucaria cunninghamiana) located to the west of the

existing dwelling is a high amenity specimen. The tree does not warrant




inclusion on the Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register, but should be

retained and protected as part of future (potential) site development.

No other trees or shrubs were identified as being of potential significance

within the site. This includes the senescent row of Monterey Cypress to the

south of the site.

PSP Property No 38.

32 Mount Ararat South Road, Nar Nar Goon

A single tree was assessed within the site.

The Quince (Cydonia oblonga) located to the south of the heritage dwelling

is of limited viability and not worthy of specific controls or retention as part

of (potential) site development.

PSP Property No 48.

140 Ryan Road, Pakenham

A single Monterey Cypress was assessed within the site.

The Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) located to the east of the

heritage dwelling is of limited viability and not worthy of specific controls or

retention as part of (potential) site development.

PSP Property No 50.


Three trees were assessed within the site.

The tree identified as a Douglas Fir is a Deodar (Cedrus deodara). The tree,

located to the west of the existing dwelling, is a high amenity specimen. The

tree does not warrant inclusion on the Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree

Register, but should be retained and protected as part of future (potential)

site development.

The two other trees identified within the site, a Cherry Plum (Prunus

cerasifera) and Willow (Salix sp.) are in advanced decline and not viable.

Both are considered to be environmental weeds.

Several other trees were identified within the site of high amenity value and are

worthy of further investigation (see individual property report, Section 4, below).




4 RESULTS OF TREE ASSESSMENT

PSP Property No 6.

15 Mount Ararat Road, Nar Nar Goon North

Figure 2 View of tree PSP 6.1 from east

Tree–PSP 6.1 Quercus robur, English Oak

Origin: Exotic Type: Deciduous Broadleaf Age: Semi-mature

DBH (cm): 65 Height: 12m Width: 14m TPZ: 7.8m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair Structure: Fair-Good SULE: 20years

Amenity value: High Comments: Wide-spreading specimen to north west of northern homestead. Prominent location near crown of hill. Tree of long-term future amenity value.

Retention Value: High Reason: High landscape contribution

Recommendation: Retain and protect as part of future potential site development




PSP Property No 8.

40 Dore Road, Nar Nar Goon

Figure 3 View of Tree PSP 8.1 from north

Tree–PSP 8.1 Cupressus sempervirens, Italian Cypress

Origin: Exotic Type: Evergreen Conifer Age: Over mature

DBH (cm): 59 Height: 15m Width: 8m TPZ: 7.1m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair-Poor Structure: Fair SULE: 0-10years

Amenity value: Medium Comments: Pair of trees growing as discrete group, providing mutual protection. Western tree is in advanced decline with few live branches. Eastern tree has been clearance pruned for power supply cable.

Retention Value: Low Reason: Limited life expectancy

Recommendation:

Not worthy of inclusion on Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register

Not worthy of retention.




Figure 4 View of Tree PSP 8.2 from north (with PSP 8.1 in the background)

Tree–PSP 8.2 Phoenix canariensis, Canary Island Date Palm

Origin: Exotic Type: Evergreen Palm Age: Semi-mature

DBH (cm): 75 Height: 14 m Width: 7 m TPZ: 7m (canopy spread)

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair-Good Structure: Fair-Good SULE: 20years

Amenity value: High Comments: On raised mound and in prominent location when viewed from south.


Recommendation:


Retain and protect as part of future potential site development.




Figure 5 Tree PSP 8.3 from the east

Tree–PSP 8.3 Pyrus communis, Common Pear

Origin: Exotic Type: Deciduous Broadleaf Age: Mature

DBH (cm): 90Measured low Height: 13m Width: 16m TPZ: 10.8m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Dormant Structure: Fair SULE: 20years

Amenity value: High Comments: Very substantial, old specimen of taxon. Although dormant, no large deadwood evident, indicative of at least fair health. Typical, co-dominant form. Tree is afforded protection from west by developing row of Monterey Cypress.

Retention Value: High Reason: Heritage tree. Large example of taxon.

Recommendation:

Worthy of inclusion on Shire of Cardinia Significant Tree Register




PSP Property No 11.

45-55 Dore Road, Nar Nar Goon

Figure 6 View of Tree 11.1 from the west

Tree–PSP 11.1 Araucaria cunninghamii, Hoop Pine

Origin: Australian Native Type: Evergreen Conifer Age: Semi-mature

DBH (cm): 68 Height: 18 m Width: 12 m TPZ: 8.2m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair-Good Structure: Fair SULE: 20years

Amenity value: High Comments: Developing co-dominant stem at 1.6m. Crown has opened up on west side.


Recommendation:






No other trees or shrubs were identified of potential significance within the site,

including a senescent row of Monterey Cypress in the south of the site.

Figure 7 Row of senescent Monterey Cypress in the south of the site




PSP Property No 38.

32 Mount Ararat South Road, Nar Nar Goon

Figure 8 View of Tree PSP 38.1 from the north

Tree–PSP 38.1 Cydonia oblonga, Quince

Origin: Exotic Type: Deciduous Broadleaf Age: Mature

DBH (cm): Multi-stemmed Height: 3m Width: 6m TPZ: 3m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair Structure: Poor SULE: 10-20years

Amenity value: Low Comments: Effectively a shooting mass of stems from messy base. Some dead stems evident in canopy.

Retention Value: Low Reason: Low amenity value

Recommendation:






PSP Property No 48.


Figure 9 View of Tree PSP 48.1 from the south west

Tree–PSP 48.1 Cupressus macrocarpa, Monterey Cypress

Origin: Exotic Type: Evergreen Conifer Age: Over mature

DBH (cm): >125 Height: 19m Width: 20m TPZ: 0m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair Structure: Fair-Poor SULE: 0-10years

Amenity value: Medium Comments: One of a number of over-mature cypress through site, characterised by history of observable limb shed and portions of dieback through crown.

Retention Value: Low Reason: Limited life expectancy

Recommendation:






PSP Property No 50.


Figure 10 View of Tree PSP 50.1 from the north

Tree–PSP 50.1 Cedrus deodara, Deodar

Origin: Exotic Type: Evergreen Conifer Age: Semi-mature

DBH (cm): 72 Height: 16.00m Width: 13.00m TPZ: 8.6m

Crown class: Symmetrical Health: Fair-Good Structure: Fair-Good SULE: 20years

Amenity value: High Comments: Tree of long-term future amenity value. Good symmetrical form.


Recommendation:






Figure 11 View of Tree 50.2 from the south west

Tree– PSP 50.2 Salix sp, Willow

Origin: Exotic weed Type: Deciduous Broadleaf Age: Senescent

DBH (cm): n/a Height: 9.00m Width: 12.00m TPZ: 0m

Crown class: Asymmetrical Health: Poor Structure: Poor SULE: 0years

Amenity value: Very Low Comments: Main tree has failed and apparently rotted out. What remains is effectively two sides of the tree with secondary scaffolds on east and west sides. West side with single live shoot.

Retention Value: Low Reason: Poor condition

Recommendation:






Figure 12 View of Tree PSP 50.3 from the south

Tree–PSP 50.3 Prunus sp., Plum

Origin: Exotic Type: Deciduous Broadleaf Age: Senescent

DBH (cm): 35, 49 Height: 9.00m Width: 17.00m TPZ: 0m

Crown class: Asymmetrical Health: Poor Structure: Poor SULE: 0years

Amenity value: Low Comments: Massive basal cavity. Large scaffold failures across adjacent shed and on west side of tree. Most of primary structure has failed at some point.

Retention Value: Low Reason: Poor condition

Recommendation:






Figure 13 Cavity in base of Tree PSP 50.3

In addition to the three trees assessed as part of this study, a number of other trees

of some amenity value were noted within the site and may be worthy of retention

within the scope of site development: a Red-Flowering Gum (Corymbia ficifolia), a

Smooth Arizona Cypress (Cupressus glabra) and a row of what appear to be

Mexican Cypress (C. lusitanica), all located in the west of the property.




5 TREE RETENTION AND PROTECTION GUIDELINES

5.1 A number of trees assessed as part of this study are suitable for retention as part of

future urban development within the precinct. These trees are listed in the Table 2,

below:

Table 2 List of trees recommended for retention within the study area

PSP

Property

No.

Address Name Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)

(m)

6 15 Mount Ararat Road,

Nar Nar Goon North

English Oak

(Quercus robur)

7.8m

8 40 Dore Road,

Nar Nar Goon

Pear

(Pyrus communis);

Canary Island Date Palm

(Phoenix canariensis)

10.8m

7m

11 45-55 Dore Road,

Nar Nar Goon

Hoop Pine

(Araucaria cunninghamii)

8.2m

50 180 Ryan Road,

Pakenham

Deodar Cedar

(Cedrus deodara)

8.6m

5.2 The potential for damage to trees to be retained as part of a subdivision is high and

requires careful design and management. This includes not only consideration of

physical works but also careful planning and urban design to ensure trees worthy of

retention are afforded sufficient room for future growth.

5.3 The following guidelines provide measures to ensure the successful retention and

integration of the above trees into future urban precincts.

1. Planning and Subdivision Layout

5.4 Proposals for urban development should demonstrate that sufficient space is

provided for the successful retention of trees during subdivision, as well as for

potential future growth.

5.5 Ideally, established trees should be retained within public open space where

generous room well beyond the calculated TPZ can be accommodated around the

tree, maximising the potential for successful retention.




5.6 The success of retention is further enhanced by the potential for ongoing

management by the Shire Council, which has in-house arboricultural expertise as well

as sufficient resources to provide appropriate ongoing maintenance inputs.

5.7 Established trees also provide immediate amenity within a park or reserve that can

be enjoyed by the local community.

5.8 In contrast, the potential for damage and decline of established trees to be retained

within a proposed road reserve is high. The proximity to construction vehicles for

road making as well as service installation greatly increases the potential for

damage.

2. Construction

5.9 Regardless of the setting, trees to be retained within a subdivision should be

afforded minimum protection based a Tree Management Plan (TMP) conforming to

AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, including establishment of

a robust, fenced area that includes the calculated TPZ as well as additional canopy

protection, if required.

5.10 Encroachment by works into a TPZ should be assessed by a suitably qualified

arborist and set out in the TMP. As well as specifications for fencing and mulching to

trees to be retained as part of development, the TMP should also include provisions

for:

Limiting excavation for road and pavement construction, service installation

and building construction. The TMP can specify sensitive methods for

construction, such as horizontal boring, root sensitive footings etc, where

these can be appropriately managed and not impact on the viability of the

tree;

Exclusion of material storage, including fuels and other chemicals;

Exclusion of vehicles, including parking wherever possible, and mechanisms

for temporary access into a TPZ if required;

Appropriate pruning standards;

Inspections by the Responsible Authority.




3. Future Plantings

5.11 Consideration is required for new plantings adjacent to an established tree,

especially if the tree is retained in a park setting.

5.12 New plantings proximal to retained trees should be limited to small shrubs and

herbaceous species to minimise direct competition, especially for solar access, and

to allow the form of the tree to be best appreciated rather than obscured by

developing plantations of large shrubs or trees.

5.13 Wherever possible, and subject to careful planting design, the area of the calculated

TPZ should remain mulched and free of substantial under plantings. Establishment of

turf within the drip zone of established trees should be avoided.




6 DESCRIPTORS

Tree Number: Refers to location of tree as per PSP Property Number.

Botanical Name: Botanical name of species, based on nomenclature and

spelling used by Spencer in Horticultural Flora of South

Eastern Australia (vols 1-5). Where Eucalyptus spp. are not

found in this source, nomenclature is based on Euclid:

Eucalypts of Australia (2006). Eucalypt subspecies

information is also based on this source.

While accurate tree identification is attempted, and

uncertainties are indicated, some inaccuracies in tree

identification may still be present – especially in certain,

difficult to determine, genera (e.g. Cotoneaster and Ulmus)

and with cultivars which can have similar characteristics.

Where a doubt as to exact species is indicated, the common

name and origin are based on the listed species, and would

change if the species were found to be incorrect.

From time to time taxonomists revise plant classification, and

name changes are assigned. If it is known names have been

revised post the publication of the relevant above listed

source, the new nomenclature has been used.

Common Name: Common names are based primarily on names and spelling

used by Spencer in Horticultural Flora of South Eastern

Australia (vols 1-5). The source of common names is taken in

the following order:

1. Single name supplied in Horticultural Flora of South

Eastern Australia;

2. First in list of names supplied in Horticultural Flora of

South Eastern Australia, unless another name in the list is

deemed more appropriate;

3. As per name supplied in Trees of Victoria and Adjoining

Areas;




4. Then by best known common name if not available in

either source.

Common names are provided for thoroughness; the botanical

name should be used when referring to the tree taxon.

Origin: Exotic: Tree origin is from outside the Australian mainland,

Tasmania or near islands.

Australian Native: Origin is from within the Australian mainland

or near islands, but outside Victoria.

Victorian Native: Origin is from within Victoria but outside the

Melbourne region. This includes trees whose native range

extends beyond Victoria into other states.

Melbourne: Origin is from within Melbourne, as defined by

plants listed in the Flora of Melbourne. This includes trees also

found outside Melbourne, and those only within the area at the

far extent of their range.

Locally Indigenous: Tree’s range includes the local area.

Weed: Trees known to show tendencies to weediness within

Victoria. Based on the City of Knox weed list, Department of

Primary Industries (Victoria) weed list and past experience.

Trees with the addition of “(nox.)” indicate a declared noxious

weed; refer to the Department of Primary Industries website

for further information.

Type: Broadleaf: Tree is a dicotyledon flowering plant.

Conifer: Tree is a cone bearing non-flowering plant.

Palm: Tree is a monocotyledon Palm (that is Arecaceae).

Palm Like: Tree is a monocotyledon, but is not a palm (that is

not Arecaceae).

Deciduous: Tree seasonally loses its leaves in Victoria.

Evergreen: Tree maintains its leaves throughout the year.




Semi-deciduous: Tree may or may not lose its leaves, or may

only partially lose them.

Age: Juvenile: Tree is actively growing and is still in its

establishment phase. Tree currently makes little contribution

to the amenity of the landscape. Trees of this age are possible

candidates for relocation during development.

Semi-mature: Tree is still actively growing but has reached an

age and size where it is starting to make a contribution to the

landscape. The size of the tree would still be expected to

increase considerably given no significant changes to the

current situation.

Mature: Tree growth has slowed, and the size of the tree would

not be expected to increase considerably without significant

changes to the current situation (e.g. vegetation removal).

Tree is not exhibiting any major signs of health or structural

weakness as a result of age.

Over mature: Tree is no longer actively putting out extension

growth, and is starting to show decline in health or structural

stability as a result of age.

Senescent: Tree is senescing. Trees in this category may not

be especially large or old, but are reaching the end of their

expected life, often indicated by extreme poor health.

Height: Estimate of the tree’s height in metres

DBH: The tree’s trunk Diameter at Breast Height (1.4m above

ground) unless specified as having been taken lower. This can

be either estimated or measured as specified in the report.

Stems of multi-stemmed trees may be listed individually, or a

measurement given at a lower point where the tree still has

one stem. In some cases, especially where trees are not

considered worthy of retention or stems are too numerous the

DBH may simply be listed as “multi-stemmed”.




Health: The tree’s health is rated as Good, Fair and Poor as listed

below. Tree ratings of Fair-Good and Fair-Poor indicate that

the tree falls between the two categories. Dead trees are not

given a rating, but are listed as Dead.

Ratings generally meet the following descriptions:

Good: Tree is showing no obvious signs of poor health or

stress with a dense canopy that is free of dieback. Rot or

pathogens are not obvious or are not considered to be a

threat to the tree. Growth rates are acceptable.

Fair: Tree is showing signs of reduced health or stress.

This is apparent through moderate foliage density, minor

dieback, moderate stress response growth, minor to moderate

rot, moderate pathogen infestation, stunted growth or a

combination of the above symptoms.

Poor: Tree is showing signs of poor health and/or severe

stress. This is apparent through either low foliage density,

moderate to large-scale dieback, severe stress response

growth, severe rot, severe pathogen infestation, failure of

wounds to heal, overall tree decline or a combination of the

above symptoms.

Note on Deciduous Species: Assessment of deciduous species

can be problematic and results may vary depending on the

time of year of assessment. Descriptor comments in relation

to foliage density do not apply to deciduous trees assessed

when dormant or entering or exiting dormancy. Time of leaf

drop or bud burst and extent of bud swell may be considered

in the health rating of these trees.

The ratings indicate that certain characteristics listed have, or

have not been observed. Inspections do not assess the whole

tree in detail for each characteristic. The comments category

should be referred to for further information.




Structure: The tree’s structure is rated as Good, Fair and Poor. Tree

ratings of Fair-Good and Fair-Poor indicate that the tree falls

between the two categories.

As a general rule, the structure rating is based on the tree’s

likelihood of failure. However, it must be noted that this is not

a full hazard or failure assessment of the tree.

Good: Tree has no obvious structural defects and is

therefore not considered likely to fail.

Fair: Tree has at least one obvious structural defect, but

this is considered to be manageable and of only moderate

failure risk or the piece likely to fail may be small. Structural

defects that may contribute to a fair rating are as follows:

Poor branch attachment (including deadwood and

large epicormics);

Bifurcated, but with a join that is considered to be

solid;

Moderate trunk lean but without other defects;

Minor damage to the trunk base;

Rot or other damage starting to compromise the

structure;

History of shedding minor branches.

Poor: Tree has at least one structural defect that is severe

and considered to have a relatively high risk of failure. If

targets are present then defect(s) require treatment, or

alternatively the tree should be removed. In some cases

removal may be the only option for these trees. Structural

defects that may contribute to a poor rating are as follows:

Poor branch attachment (including deadwood and

large epicormics);

Bifurcated with swelling and/or included bark;




Severe trunk lean associated with other defects such

as injury in the plane of lean of root plate lift;

Major damage to the trunk base or root system;

Rot or other damage severely compromising the

structure;

History of shedding large branches.

The ratings indicate that certain characteristics listed have, or

have not been observed. Inspections do not assess the whole

tree in intense detail for each characteristic. The comments

category should be referred to for further information.

Crown class: Symmetrical: For the most part canopy received light from all

four sides and has to potential for even foliage distribution.

Canopy may or may not be symmetrical, but is not

suppressed.

Asymmetrical: Canopy is shaded or suppressed with one or

more sides and dominant when compared to the remainder of

the tree. Also includes crowns damaged by previous shading.

Intermediate: Canopy is only receiving light from top, and

while shape may be even the upper portions of the canopy

dominate over the lower.

Suppressed: Canopy is completely shaded by surrounding

vegetation, buildings etc.

Regrowth: Canopy comprised of regrowth. This can be from

the base, but also includes branches covered with small, stress

related epicormics.

Trained: Canopy has been specifically trained. This may

include trees that are pollarded, coppiced or espaliered.

Trees may exhibit a combination of the characteristics above

(e.g. a symmetrical canopy of basal regrowth), or may fall




between two categories. The characteristic listed is

considered to be the best fit at the time.

Amenity value: Very Low: Tree makes little or no contribution to the amenity

value of the site or surrounding area. In some cases the tree

may be detrimental to the area’s amenity value (e.g. unsightly,

risk of weed spread).

Low: Tree makes some contribution to the amenity value of

the site, but makes no contribution to the amenity value of the

surrounding area. Removal of the tree would result in little

loss of amenity. Juvenile trees (including street trees) are

generally included in this category, however they may have

the potential to supply increased amenity in the future.

Medium: Tree makes a moderate contribution to the amenity

of the site and/or may contribute to the amenity of the

surrounding area.

High: Tree makes a significant contribution to the amenity

value of the site, or tree makes a moderate to significant

contribution to the amenity vale of the larger landscape.

The amenity value rating considers the impact the tree has on

any neighbouring sites as being of equal importance to that

supplied to the subject site. However, trees that contribute to

the amenity of the general area (e.g. streetscape) are given

greater weight.

Comments: Any additional comments in relation to the above categories.

SULE: The Safe, Useful, Life Expectancy of the tree from a health,

structure, amenity and weediness viewpoint given no

significant changes to the current situation. This category is

difficult to determine, and should be taken as an estimate only,

in addition to this, factors not observed at the time of

inspection can lead to tree decline.




0: Tree is a hazard or a weed and should be removed

immediately.

0-10: Estimated SULE of less than 10 years.

10-20: Estimated SULE of 10 to 20 years.

20: Estimated SULE of 20 years or greater.

Recommendation: Remove: Tree is either not worthy of retention or requires

removal (e.g. weed species).

Retain or Remove: Tree does not require removal, but is of low

retention value.

Retain if practical: Tree has a moderate retention value and

should be retained if possible during any development of the

site.

Notes: Dead: Tree is dead and should therefore be removed.

Good condition: Tree is worthy of retention based on its

condition. Trees may still have some structural or health

problems, but are generally worth retaining.

Good development potential: Tree is of a small size, but is

considered to have a high potential to develop well. Retention

of these trees should be considered as they should develop

more quickly than new plantings.

Hazardous: Tree should be removed as it is hazardous.

Heritage tree: Tree is of heritage significance. Refer to the

introduction for further information on any trees of heritage

significance.

High landscape contribution: Tree is worthy of retention based

on its contribution to the site or landscape (associated with

amenity value).




Inappropriate location: The tree is not in an appropriate

location for its species, size etc. Includes trees too large for

their current location.

Juvenile – simple to replace: Tree does not have a high

retention value as a similarly sized replacement specimen

could be obtained. Alternatively, the tree is a candidate for

relocation.

Limited life expectancy: Tree is in decline, or is expected to

start to decline within a relatively short time period. As a

result, it is not sensible to implement extensive tree protection

measures to save the tree unless there are extenuating

circumstances (e.g. outside ownership).

Low Amenity Value: Tree is unsightly, or has little potential to

add to site amenity (e.g. a non-canopy fruit tree).

Outside ownership: Tree is located outside the subject site,

and is therefore owned by another party. The tree may be in

a neighbouring private property or fall within the council

managed nature strip/road reserve.

It is assumed that the owner of the tree wishes to retain it, and

the trees are listed as retain for that reason. The owner should

be contacted for discussions if the removal of the tree is

wanted. Recommendation of retention of any of these trees is

based solely on the above mentioned reason, and is no

indication of the tree’s general worthiness for retention.

Poor condition: Tree’s poor condition makes it unworthy of

retention.

Rare / unusual species: Tree is of a species, cultivar or form

(trained or otherwise) which is unusual, at least in the local

area, and which has some retention value (usually amenity

value). Trees of this nature may also classify as a “heritage

tree”.




Remnant Indigenous: The tree is a remnant indigenous

specimen and therefore has environmental value. Trees of this

nature, in reasonable condition are usually recommended for

retention.

Senescent: Tree should be removed as it is dying.

Significant tree: The tree has been declared a significant tree

by the local council, and retention is likely to be a permit

requirement.

Unlikely to develop well: Tree is immature with a severe defect

which will prevent its form developing as it should or tree has

a severe defect, the correction of which will result in a tree

shape that is unlikely to redevelop well .

Weed species: Tree should be removed due to weedy nature

of the species.

TPZ: The Tree Protection Zone of the tree, measured as a

radial distance in metres from the centre of the trunk. The TPZ

is calculated using the method specified in Australian Standard

AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

TPZs are not listed for trees that are recommended for

removal.




7 APPENDIX 1 – DATASHEET FOR CARDINIA SIGNIFICANT

TREE ASSESSMENT

EUROPEAN PEAR, 40 DORE ROAD, NAR NAR GOON NORTH

TREE NO: 02-3812-01

Botanical Name: Pyrus ?communis

Common Name: European Pear

Address: 40 Dore Road

Suburb/Township: Nar Nar Goon North

Setting/Position: Single specimen tree on west side of garden setting

Number of Trees: 1

Public/Private: Private

GPS Location: 370955, 5786384

Height: 14m

Canopy N-S: 16m spread E-W: 12m

Trunk girth: 282cm DBH: 90cm (at 600 mm)

Approximate Age: >70 years

Projected amenity Medium/Long period:

TPZ: 10.8m


TREE NO: 02-3812-01

Figure 1: View of tree from east

History:

Crown allotment 21 was purchased by John Dore in 1861 and shortly thereafter transferred to Edward Dore. The farm, known as The Range was occupied from this time, and a wattle and daub dwelling occupied the site at least until the 1930’s. Fruiting Pears are potentially long-lived trees, and the size of this specimen suggests it dates from at least the early 20th century.

Integrity: Good. The tree is reasonably well structured and although dormant at the time of assessment, was not showing indictors of reduced health.

Significant Features:

The tree is notable for its outstanding size.

Comparative Analysis:

Orchards, especially cultivation of apples, were a major industry within the district from the 19th century onwards. This particular tree appears to have been planted as a single specimen within a domestic garden, rather than for commercial purposes. The tree is the largest known specimen of this taxon within the Shire of Cardinia.


TREE NO: 02-3812-01

Statement of Significance:

What is significant? A mature European Pear tree forming a speciumen within a farm garden setting. How is it significant? The tree is of local significance to Cardinia Shire. Why is it significant? The European Pear is of local significance as an outstanding example of this species within Cardinia. The tree is associated with the early history of the site, and the Dore family.

Level: Local

Categories of Significance:

A1C Association with the early property, The Range

D1N Outstanding example of the species

Tree Condition: The tree was assessed during the dormant winter season. Re-assessment during the active growing season is recommended.

Threats/Risks:

Removal of the tree as part of subdivision. Removal of the Monterey Cypress row to the west which

affords protection from prevailing summer winds

Management Prescriptions:

Regular assessment and if required, maintenance.

Extra Research: None noted.

Tree Rating: Four (4)

References: Post-Contact Heritage Assessment. Pakenham East Precinct. Prepared for Shire of Cardinia by Context Pty Ltd. March 2013

Assessed By: SH-JPLA

Date: 28th May 2013




8 APPENDIX 2 – CARDINIA SHIRE COUNCIL SIGNIFICANT TREE

STUDY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Tabl

e 1

– C

ardi

nia

Shi

re C

ounc

il S

igni

fican

t Tre

e S

tudy

Ass

essm

ent C

riter

ia

Crit

erio

n D

escr

iptio

n

(Ada

pted

from

Her

itage

Vic

toria

) S

igni

fican

ce

Cul

tura

l sig

nific

ance

N

atur

al s

igni

fican

ce

Cod

e D

escr

iptio

n C

ode

Des

crip

tion

A

The

hist

oric

al

impo

rtanc

e,

asso

ciat

ion

with

or r

elat

ions

hip

to th

e hi

stor

y of

a p

lace

or o

bjec

t. H

isto

ric

A1C

Tree

s w

ith

an

asso

ciat

ion

with

th

e hi

stor

y of

an

hist

oric

obj

ect

such

as

hous

es,

build

ings

, to

wn

cent

res,

st

reet

scap

es o

r par

ks.

N

/A

E.g

. Tr

ees

form

ing

the

early

pla

ntin

g st

ruct

ure

of th

e Fi

tzro

y ga

rden

s

A2C

Tree

s w

ith

an

hist

oric

al

impo

rtanc

e,

othe

r th

an a

ssoc

iatio

ns c

omin

g fro

m

A1C

abo

ve o

r A3C

bel

ow.

N

/A

E.g

. Th

e se

para

tion

tree

in t

he R

oyal

B

otan

ic G

arde

ns, M

elbo

urne

. Th

e “D

ig”

tree

(Bur

ke a

nd W

ills)

A3C

Com

mem

orat

ive

plan

tings

.

Incl

udes

tre

es

plan

ted

by

wel

l kn

own

publ

ic

figur

es,

or p

lant

ed t

o m

ark

an h

isto

ric

occa

sion

, per

son

or e

vent

.

N/A

E

.g.

The

Bun

ya

Pin

e pl

ante

d by

G

over

nor S

tanl

ey in

Har

cour

t Th

e Fe

dera

l Oak

, P

arlia

men

t G

arde

ns,

Mel

bour

ne

A4C

Tree

s or

gro

ups

whi

ch d

emon

stra

te a

n hi

stor

ic p

lant

ing

styl

e w

hich

is

not

of

scie

ntifi

c si

gnifi

canc

e.

Im

plie

s a

degr

ee o

f rar

ity.

N

/A

E.g

. Th

e A

venu

e of

Le

mon

S

cent

ed

Gum

s at

Cru

den

Farm

.

A5C

Tree

s w

hich

are

ind

icat

ive

of a

pas

t la

nd

use,

w

ith

this

la

nd

use

bein

g as

soci

ated

with

the

hist

ory

of th

e ar

ea

A6N

Tree

s w

hich

are

ind

icat

ive

of a

pas

t na

tura

l veg

etat

ion

cove

r, w

hich

is n

ow

larg

ely

rem

oved

E

.g.

rem

nant

or

char

d tre

es

and

win

drow

s in

Man

ning

ham

E

.g.

Red

Gum

s w

ithin

the

car

park

of

the

MC

G, M

elbo

urne

Crit

erio

n D

escr

iptio

n

(Ada

pted

from

Her

itage

Vic

toria

) S

igni

fican

ce

Cul

tura

l sig

nific

ance

N

atur

al s

igni

fican

ce

Cod

e D

escr

iptio

n C

ode

Des

crip

tion

B

The

impo

rtanc

e of

a

tree

in

dem

onst

ratin

g ra

rity

or u

niqu

enes

s.

Aes

thet

ic,

His

toric

, S

cien

tific

&

Soc

ial

B1C

Tree

s of

a s

peci

es,

culti

var

or s

port

whi

ch

is

rare

/ un

usua

l an

d ha

s a

spec

ific

soci

al o

r hi

stor

ic s

igni

fican

ce

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

is.

B1N

Tree

s of

a s

peci

es,

culti

var

or s

port

whi

ch i

s ra

re,

or u

nusu

al,

but

whi

ch

does

no

t ha

ve

a sp

ecifi

c so

cial

or

hi

stor

ic s

igni

fican

ce.

E

.g.

Rar

e co

nife

rs

dist

ribut

ed

by

Ferd

inan

d vo

n M

uelle

r as

pa

rt of

ex

perim

enta

l ear

ly p

lant

ings

E.g

. U

nusu

al,

natu

rally

oc

curr

ing

hybr

ids.

Tree

s w

ith

char

acte

ristic

s w

hich

co

uld

cont

ribut

e to

br

eedi

ng

prog

ram

s (e

.g. h

ardi

ness

).

B2C

Tree

s w

hich

ar

e pa

rticu

larly

ol

d or

ve

nera

ble,

in

a

soci

al

or

hist

oric

co

ntex

t.

B2N

Indi

geno

us t

rees

whi

ch a

re p

artic

ular

ly

old

or v

ener

able

, bu

t w

ithou

t a

cultu

ral

conn

ectio

n. (

NB

. Non

-indi

geno

us tr

ees

wou

ld fu

lfill

crite

ria B

2C)

E.g

. Ve

ry

old

orch

ard

trees

.

Tree

s pl

ante

d so

on

afte

r E

urop

ean

settl

emen

t of a

n ar

ea.

E.g

. Th

e R

iver

R

ed

Gum

s at

Th

e G

reen

ery,

Tem

ples

tow

e, t

houg

ht t

o be

ov

er 3

00 y

ears

old

.

N

/A

B3N

Tree

s of

an

outs

tand

ing

size

. Th

is c

an

be i

n te

rms

of h

eigh

t, tru

nk g

irth

or

cano

py s

prea

d.

Sm

alle

r tre

es o

f an

ou

tsta

ndin

g si

ze f

or t

he s

peci

es m

ay

also

be

cons

ider

ed.

E

.g.

The

Ada

tre

e in

Gip

psla

nd,

(an

extre

me

exam

ple)

N/A

B

4N

Tree

s lo

cate

d at

the

extre

miti

es o

f the

ir na

tura

l ra

nge,

an

d th

eref

ore

of

bota

nica

l in

tere

st.

In

clud

es

disj

unct

co

mm

uniti

es.

E

.g.

the

Red

Iro

nbar

k in

War

rand

yte,

th

ough

t to

be

the

only

kno

wn

natu

ral

spec

imen

sou

th o

f the

Yar

ra.

C

The

tree’

s po

tent

ial

to

educ

ate,

ill

ustra

te o

r pr

ovid

e fu

rther

sci

entif

ic

inve

stig

atio

n in

re

latio

n to

cu

ltura

l he

ritag

e.

Sci

entif

ic &

H

isto

ric

C1C

Tree

s or

gro

ups

whi

ch d

emon

stra

te a

n hi

stor

ic

scie

ntifi

c pl

antin

g st

yle

or

husb

andr

y te

chni

que.

Impl

ies

a de

gree

of r

arity

or u

niqu

enes

s.

N

/A

E.g

. Th

e H

awth

orn

at

Bud

a,

Cas

tlem

aine

with

a g

raft

that

is n

ot n

ow

used

com

mer

cial

ly

Crit

erio

n D

escr

iptio

n

(Ada

pted

from

Her

itage

Vic

toria

) S

igni

fican

ce

Cul

tura

l sig

nific

ance

N

atur

al s

igni

fican

ce

Cod

e D

escr

iptio

n C

ode

Des

crip

tion

D

The

impo

rtanc

e of

a tr

ee in

exh

ibiti

ng

the

prin

cipa

l ch

arac

teris

tics

or

the

repr

esen

tativ

e na

ture

of

a

tree

as

part

of a

cla

ss o

r typ

e of

tree

.

Aes

thet

ic

D1C

Tree

is

an o

utst

andi

ng e

xam

ple

of a

pl

antin

g st

yle

or c

ultiv

atio

n te

chni

que.

D

1N

Tree

is a

n ou

tsta

ndin

g ex

ampl

e of

the

ta

xon

E.g

. Th

e C

ypre

ss

hedg

e at

B

uda,

C

astle

mai

ne.

E.g

. Th

e G

olde

n E

lm o

n th

e co

rner

of

Pun

t R

oad

and

Ale

xand

ra

Ave

, M

elbo

urne

E

The

impo

rtanc

e of

the

tre

e or

gro

up

of t

rees

in e

xhib

iting

goo

d de

sign

or

aest

hetic

ch

arac

teris

tics

and/

or

in

exhi

bitin

g a

richn

ess,

di

vers

ity

or

unus

ual i

nteg

ratio

n of

feat

ures

.

Aes

thet

ic

E1C

Tree

s w

hich

m

ake

an

aest

hetic

co

ntrib

utio

n to

a c

ultu

rally

sig

nific

ant

land

scap

e in

a w

ay w

hich

add

s to

its

cu

ltura

l sig

nific

ance

.

E1N

Tree

s w

hich

m

ake

a si

gnifi

cant

co

ntrib

utio

n to

th

e ae

sthe

tics

of

a la

ndsc

ape

whi

ch

is

not

in

itsel

f cu

ltura

lly s

igni

fican

t. Im

plie

s a

degr

ee

of ra

rity

or u

niqu

enes

s.

E.g

. tre

es w

hich

fra

me

an h

isto

rical

ly

sign

ifica

nt b

uild

ing.

Tr

ees

whi

ch l

ine

stre

ets

in h

erita

ge a

reas

.

E.g

. Th

e on

ly l

arge

tre

e in

a r

ecen

t su

bdiv

isio

n.

Tree

s w

hich

fra

me

a na

tura

l vie

w.

Out

stan

ding

stre

et tr

ees.

E2C

Tree

s of

ou

tsta

ndin

g ae

sthe

tic

valu

e du

e to

abn

orm

al/c

urio

us g

row

th a

s a

resu

lt of

hum

an m

anip

ulat

ion.

E

2N

Tree

s of

ou

tsta

ndin

g ae

sthe

tic

valu

e du

e to

abn

orm

al/c

urio

us g

row

th a

s a

resu

lt of

nat

ural

pro

cess

es

E.g

. E

lms

at

Hei

delb

erg

Par

k w

hich

ha

ve b

een

man

ipul

ated

into

an

Arc

h E

.g.

Riv

er

Red

G

um

at

Boo

rtkic

in

Vi

ctor

ia’s

w

este

rn

dist

rict

whi

ch

is

grow

ing

horiz

onta

lly.

F

The

impo

rtanc

e of

th

e tre

e in

de

mon

stra

ting

or b

eing

ass

ocia

ted

with

sc

ient

ific

or

tech

nica

l in

nova

tions

or a

chie

vem

ents

.

Sci

entif

ic

F1C

Tree

s, u

sed

in s

cien

tific

ally

sig

nific

ant

bree

ding

pro

gram

s.

This

incl

udes

rar

e ex

ampl

es o

f the

dev

elop

ed p

lant

s.

N/A

E

.g. P

re 1

934

pear

tree

s w

ithin

the

field

st

atio

n of

Bur

nley

Gar

dens

.

F2C

Tree

s as

soci

ated

w

ith

sign

ifica

nt

scie

ntifi

c st

udie

s or

inno

vatio

ns

N/A

E

.g. T

rees

with

in th

e S

yste

m G

arde

n at

M

elbo

urne

Uni

vers

ity, P

arkv

ille

Crit

erio

n D

escr

iptio

n

(Ada

pted

from

Her

itage

Vic

toria

) S

igni

fican

ce

Cul

tura

l sig

nific

ance

N

atur

al s

igni

fican

ce

Cod

e D

escr

iptio

n C

ode

Des

crip

tion

G

The

impo

rtanc

e of

th

e tre

e in

de

mon

stra

ting

soci

al

or

cultu

ral

asso

ciat

ions

.

Soc

ial

G1C

Tr

ees

whi

ch a

re im

porta

nt la

ndm

arks

N/A

E

.g.

Can

ary

Isla

nd

Dat

e P

alm

s on

M

ount

Ale

xand

er R

oad,

Ess

endo

n

G2C

Tree

s w

hich

are

impo

rtant

to

a so

cial

or

cul

tura

l gro

up

N

/A

E.g

. Th

e B

alla

rat

Ave

nue

of H

onou

r, Th

e C

anoe

sc

ar

tree

at

Hei

de,

the

Pla

ne w

ithin

the

Mel

bour

ne C

lub

H

Any

oth

er m

atte

r whi

ch is

con

side

red

rele

vant

to

th

e de

term

inat

ion

of

cultu

ral

herit

age

or

natu

ral

sign

ifica

nce.

Aes

thet

ic,

His

toric

, S

cien

tific

&

Soc

ial

H2C

Any

oth

er t

ree

whi

ch i

s co

nsid

ered

to

be

of

aest

hetic

, hi

stor

ic,

soci

al

o rsc

ient

ific

cultu

ral s

igni

fican

ce b

ut d

oes

not f

it on

e of

the

abov

e ca

tego

ries.

H2N

Any

oth

er t

ree

whi

ch is

con

side

red

to

be o

f ae

sthe

tic,

hist

oric

or

scie

ntifi

c na

tura

l si

gnifi

canc

e bu

t do

es n

ot f

it on

e of

the

abov

e ca

tego

ries.

N

ote:

Any

term

s st

ated

in p

lura

l are

als

o ap

plic

able

in th

e si

ngul

ar a

nd v

ice

vers

a. T

he te

rm “

tree”

refe

rs to

a s

ingl

e tre

e or

gro

up a

sses

sed

as a

sin

gle

entit

y.

Sign

ifica

nce

Def

initi

ons

The

defin

ition

s of

cul

tura

l sig

nific

ance

bel

ow a

re t

aken

fro

m t

he H

erita

ge V

icto

ria L

ands

cape

Ass

essm

ent

Gui

delin

es w

ith s

ome

mod

ifica

tions

. T

he

exce

ptio

n to

thi

s is

the

Nat

ural

Sig

nific

ance

crit

eria

, as

ite

ms

of n

atur

al s

igni

fican

ce a

re n

ot r

ecog

nise

d by

Her

itage

Vic

toria

whi

ch f

ocus

es o

n th

e cu

ltura

l her

itage

sig

nific

ance

as

defin

ed b

y th

e H

erita

ge A

ct, 1

995

and

the

Bur

ra C

harte

r.

Aest

hetic

sig

nific

ance

acc

omm

odat

es a

ll th

e se

nsor

y va

lues

of t

he p

lace

(bu

t priv

ilege

s th

e vi

sual

esp

ecia

lly)

and

is o

ften

enca

psul

ated

in a

rchi

tect

ural

te

rms,

suc

h as

thro

ugh

a pa

rticu

lar s

tyle

. H

isto

rical

sig

nific

ance

rela

tes

to th

e va

lue

of a

pla

ce’s

ass

ocia

tion

with

impo

rtant

his

toric

al e

vent

s, e

ras

or in

divi

dual

s, p

eopl

e. H

isto

ric v

alue

‘und

erlie

s’

aest

hetic

, soc

ial a

nd s

cien

tific

val

ue (M

arqu

is-K

yle

and

Wal

ker 1

992:

23)

. Sc

ient

ific

sign

ifica

nce

rela

tes

to t

he t

echn

ical

ach

ieve

men

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

pla

ce,

or f

or it

s ed

ucat

iona

l pot

entia

l. G

ener

ally

, sc

ient

ific

sign

ifica

nce

may

rela

te to

a v

arie

ty o

f pla

ces,

from

indu

stria

l site

s su

ch a

s m

ines

to b

ridge

s or

dam

s.

Soci

al s

igni

fican

ce m

ay in

clud

e pl

aces

of s

igni

fican

ce to

gro

ups

and

com

mun

ities

, esp

ecia

lly th

roug

h us

e.

Nat

ural

sig

nific

ance

cov

ers

trees

whi

ch fu

lfill

the

Aes

thet

ic, S

cien

tific

or

(nat

ural

) H

isto

ry c

riter

ia w

ithou

t and

cul

tura

l (hu

man

) co

nnec

tions

. Tr

ees

whi

ch

fit th

e S

ocia

l crit

eria

, hav

e by

impl

icat

ion

a co

nnec

tion

to p

eopl

e.

SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT...28/5/2013 Cherry Plum, Weeping Willow, Douglas Fir. Pakenham East...

Documents

Transcript of SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT...28/5/2013 Cherry Plum, Weeping Willow, Douglas Fir. Pakenham East...